Nov. 11 Special Session

Exchange meeting and special session at 9:00 tomorrow. It is your opportunity to speak about any questions and concerns you have. Civilly, please. I know many people are feeling they have been deceived by this Board just as they were by the last board. The PAC/MV design elements list is not available on the website so members are left trying to remember what was on it. Not to worry, VP McAdams has made it clear that the decision to build a standalone theater building with fixed seating and an orchestra pit has been made and is not a topic that can be discussed. I am very disappointed but not surprised.
I will civilly ask some pointed questions tomorrow and fully expect to be reprimanded (again) for it. As you all know, I am a strong advocate for having an overall plan for the redevelopment of Sun City and stop these ad hoc agenda driven decisions that involve tens of millions of dollars.

Best regards and God Bless,

John

 

I want to know who else is actually scheduled to use the facility other than the Player's?

14 million dollars doesn't warrant a "Field of Dreams" and "If they Build it, They will Come."

I want to know who "they" is and not just possibilities?? I want data!

 

You can find Karen's presentation here: https://suncityaz.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/SACPresentationOnPAC6.23_Final_McAdam.pdf

Last page has "potential" uses . . . by "days" used, not hours.

I tried to upload the pdfs . . . failed for whatever reason.

Tell me how this presentation supports this spend?

 

John, Do you happen to know what "proper channels" were that Karen said the BOD followed in making the backroom decision? Nothing they promised the owners was followed in the least.

Disappointed isn't the word I'd use. You are too nice. And there were 2 elements listed - and they never clarified which one was sent - I believe it was the original CCBG list.

 

John
Monday, not tomorrow (Sunday)..Looking forward to your comments.

 

Those "potential" uses still only occupy the facility 55% of the time?

And I was told by a reliable source that when some of those "potential" users were approached, none would actually commit to using it.

Would be curious to also learn how much time would all those "potential" users actually occupy?

The one thing that still sticks in my craw is that those people who purchase tickets for the 12 Sundial Ticketed Concert Series will still be stuck sitting in a gymnasium environment on uncomfortable folding chairs?

 

I believe there was actually two votes taken that day. And the meetings ended in a convoluted mess. One vote said MV and the other said Bell. Best to view the videos of those last couple meetings.

 

good luck with that FYI

 

The only matter pertaining to the Performing Arts Center at Monday’s Special Session is
about it’s location.

Will the board vote to accept the Lakeview location recommendation?

Members are encouraged to speak their comments and questions about the PAC location motion before the board votes.

Mountain View Renovation Project
Performing Arts Center Project
Decisions 2024
Excerpts from BOD meeting minutes

RECREATION CENTERS OF SUN CITY, INC. BOARD MEETING MINUTES
January 25, 2024
President Comments: President Fimmel stated that it’s a new year with new opportunities ahead. Primary is the Mountain View project with a motion today to move forward. By moving forward today, we will be stepping closer to putting the project into the hands of a design engineer. She thanked the Strategic Alternatives Committee (SAC) for the work they did in providing information and also the Long-Range Planning (LRP) committee who developed the presentation for the town halls. Because of the work done by these two committees, the Board was able to develop elements and will move forward. Please know that this is not the end of member involvement in this process, it is just the beginning.

New Business
Prior to the PowerPoint Presentations, Director Rough made the following statement: I want to talk about the process that the Board is initiating.
The Board has decided to go forward with the elements for each part of the remodel and get architects and engineers to look at the details of what we want at Mountain View and the Performing Arts Center (PAC). We don’t know how much that will cost, but the process is one of identifying details so that the architect/engineer can design the remodel.
No details of the design are determined as yet. We need to get the design and plans to submit to the county for approval. We still won’t know what it’s really going to cost until the completed plans go to construction companies for bid.
Nothing that we have planned is absolutely going to happen. All decisions depend on costs and input from everyone as we go through this process. I want you to be aware that there are no final decisions. This is the initial plan that we think is the best for Sun City.
The PAC will start at the same time whether at Lakeview or Mountain View.
Prior to the motion, Director Kise and Director Fast both gave a PowerPoint Presentation on the Mountain View Project.
2. Director Kise – I move to approve the Mountain View Recreation Center renovation elements developed by the Board of Directors and to direct the General Manager to use the elements to seek bids to renovate the recreation center.
Prior to the vote, Director Kise moved to amend the motion to read: I move to approve the Mountain View Recreation Center and Performing Arts Center elements developed by the Board of Directors and to direct the General Manager to use the elements to seek bids to renovate the recreation center and to build or renovate a performing arts center.
Seconded by Treasurer Borski, the amendment passed 8 to 1 with Director Fast opposed.
The vote was taken on the amended motion, and it passed the first reading 8 to 1 with Director Fast opposed.

RECREATION CENTERS OF SUN CITY, INC. BOARD MEETING MINUTES
February 29, 2024

Approval of Agenda: Director Fast stated that he objects to the reading of motion #2 which is to be the second reading of the motion. In looking back, he claims the elements were not in existence in this form and it would be improper under Roberts Rules to call this a second reading of the motion because it is the first reading of all the final elements. After further discussion, Director Collins called the question. Seconded by Director Kise; a vote was taken to remove the motion from the agenda and failed 7 to 2 with Director Fast and Secretary Totten in favor. The Agenda was approved as presented. Director Fast stated that he objects to the ruling.

2. Director Kise – I move to approve the Mountain View Recreation Center and Performing Arts Center elements developed by the Board of Directors and to direct the General Manager to use the elements to seek bids to renovate the recreation center and to build or renovate a performing arts center.
Discussion by the Board was had, and Director Collins called the question. Treasurer Borski seconded the calling of the question, and after the vote, the motion to call the question failed 1 to 8 with all opposed except Director Collins. After continued discussion, the vote was taken on the motion which passed its second reading 7 to 2 with Director Fast and Secretary Totten opposed.


RECREATION CENTERS OF SUN CITY, INC. BOARD MEETING MINUTES
May 30, 2024
Recreation Center update Report-General Manager D’Luzansky:
7. We received four proposals from Architects for the Mountain View – PAC project. We are going through an initial evaluation of each proposal, and we are developing a matrix allowing for a better comparison. We will be making a recommendation to the Board soon, so hopefully we can get this project rolling again.

RECREATION CENTERS OF SUN CITY, INC. BOARD MEETING MINUTES
June 27, 2024

Committee/Liaison Reports: Director Kise gave an update on the Mountain View Project:
When the RCSC Board presented you with the Mountain View project elements in February, we said that we would keep you informed of the project progress. Today, we are providing information on why we selected TriArc Architecture and Design as the design team and have started to move forward with them on this project.
TriArc is based in Phoenix, has been in business for 17 years, and is a minority owned firm. Their prior projects include the RH Johnson Recreation Center in Sun City West, the Herberger Theater renovation, and the Goodyear Recreation Campus.
Their proposal provided 4 possible renovation concepts that included renovating the existing auditorium into a Performing Arts Center (PAC), building a new PAC at Mountain View, or building an off-site PAC. They were hypothetical only to show us some possibilities.
Their proposal was the most thorough and included extensive information on all their consultants.
They also provided significant specialized services that other proposal as didn’t as part of their costs like a geotechnical engineering consultant, an aquatic design consultant, and security consultant.
We were very impressed with their creativity, flexibility and out of-the-box thinking.
They also paid close attention to the elements' details. Paying attention to detail and listening to what Sun City needs for this project are essential skills to get the renovated rec center you deserve and have been waiting so long for.
We are excited to be partners with TriArc on this long overdue project.
We will continue to keep you informed as the renovation progresses but please keep in mind that the design and construction of a project of this magnitude is going to take a long time to complete.

RCSC minutes/summaries https://suncityaz.org/rcsc/meeting-minutes-and-summaries
Archived minutes https://suncityaz.org/rcsc/meeting-minutes-and-summaries/board-minutes-archived/

RCSC E-notice
Amended Agenda: Special Session on Performing Arts Center Location
To be held Mon, 11/11/2024
Director Collins: I move that the recommendation by TriArc, the architect- engineering firm designing the Mountainview project, regarding the location of the proposed Performing Arts Center (PAC), be accepted.

https://suncityaz.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/2024_11_11-Special-Session-Agenda-1.pdf

 

Six centers were chosen to be reviewed as potential locations for the PAC. Extensive study was conducted by Tri-Arc. They narrowed down to Bell, Lakeview and Mountain View.
Their final recommendation is Lakeview.
Board is voting at Special Session, motion to accept.
Great presentation if you want all the details of the study.
Performing Arts Center Presentation from the RCSC Board of Directors Planning Session RCSC E-Notification sent 11/01/2024 Performing Arts Center Concept Unveiled On Thursday, October 31, 2024, RCSC welcomed development firm triARC Architecture and Design to share plans for the new Performing Arts Center. Below, you'll find the presentation materials and a video of the planning session.
➡️ RCSC Board of Directors Planning Session Presentation (PDF) https://suncityaz.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/TA-Selection-Process-PAC-10-31-2024.pdf
➡️ RCSC Board of Directors Planning Session Video # Source: RCSC E-notice https://mailchi.mp/3682c1df9020/exchange-video-link-7786221?e=f18f779945

 

My bad, meant to say LV. Good catch!

 

Agree - this is why I said the use should be presented also in hours. e.g. Movies 35 times a year for maybe 15-20 movie goers (old movies) is basically 70 hrs pers year. Oh wait, I heard there was an idea by a Board member to bring in highschool debate teams. Seriously?

And yes, any professional performances there will cost much more at only 325 seats. Multiple performances may be needed and you have to pay for those multiple performances.

This disaster and shift towards the BOD architect can all be seen on the Feb 29, 2024 Board Meeting video. It's embarrassing and appalling. (No wonder John and Jean quit - that was enough to make anyone quit - the rude and childish behavior by others is unconscionable).

This Feb 29 meeting is also where the element confusion is raised. We have no idea which elements they sent . . . . 22 or 10 for the PAC. The 22 mirror CCBG design and I suspect what they sent. An orchestra pit?????? Unwise and lack of long-term thought in spending. Period.

This is also where they commit to starting both the stand-alone PAC and Mt. View at the same time (Kat confirmed my thoughts - she said the BOD directs "what" and "where" we want elements (the Mt. View pool discussion in the video - oh and the PAC one would suspect now), NOT the architect by process of good design and cost considerations. (Go watch, the whole meeting will make your day.)

I bet if they revisit ALL the videos, they will find many more concerned with a stand-alone PAC design than the few that are raising their voices the loudest.

And again, yes, this is a community that is supposed to be run for the betterment of Sun City as a whole-that is the Board's commission . . . they are ignoring the many one-off comments that can be seen throughout the whole period of this debacle - but they choose to listen to the few that represent the 75 loudest.

Without more involvment of the community, we are going to go right back to management managing the Board. Get involved in the meetings or don't bother saying anything about your fees. Which it's common sense they need to increase, but to how much is what we can help by ensuring a well run community with our voices.

 

You are correct, Emily. There were also several Town Halls where the majority of the Members present wanted the PAC to stay at Mountain View.
Jean

 

Well said Susan and these words have been my mantra in everything i have said, done and written since 2011 when i first ran and was elected to the RCSC board:

"We are going to go right back to management managing the Board."

The board became the rubber stamp for the management team to set our course and direction. We got to the point where the normal attendance was 20-30 of us watching and having no impact. Committees were neutered and were little more than window dressing. That all changed when Karen McAdam was fired and the community began paying attention for the first time in a long time.

John Fast was 100% correct; the 40-50 million dollar debacle at Mountain View was craziness. It would have hand-cuffed this community for 10 years and we would have built the Taj Mahal of show places at the far end of the community with limited activities in it. That said, the MV remodel should be done post haste.

I was encouraged the "elements" proposed would be one way to accelerate the process, so i was surprised to read the comments the PAC and MV would be done at the same time. While that may sound good, it is utter foolishness. My concern is the way this is being done is more about what they want at Mountain View than where the PAC is being built.

I know the lawn bowling community is being told they will be a second green built at MV so we have another double green complex. As i told several of them, that will never happen, nor should it. We (lawn bowlers) don't need 7 greens in Sun City. Our problem is losing the double greens at Lakeview would pose a huge problem for us, our local tournaments rely on two greens being available at a single venue.

That says nothing about the outdoor shuffle board being gone, losing the club that has the small power boats and their regattas, the neighbors having the multiple story building in their backyards and destroying that amazing piece of lake frontage. Throw in the costs coupled with the question of utilization and it makes virtually no sense.

Finally, and this is the big one for me: What is the plan for Lakeview? I can tell you there have been committees lusting after the the remodel of that center for nearly 20 years. It was a major attraction when it opened in 1970 and it was billed as a "resort style" center. Over the years as it aged, many of us came to understand the steep walkways coupled with the barely functional design of the narrow round structure were problematic. Added in was the beauty of the setting of the lake that offered a unique opportunity to create something truly special.

With nearly 16 acres of land (the only larger site is Bell with 27 acres), we have enormous opportunity to change the community dynamic. I have long argued the one missing component in Sun City is a community center. A defined gathering space for members including offices, the visitor center, a large multi-purpose venue (not solely built as a performing arts center), all created with an eye towards capturing that magnificent lake frontage.

We know Sun City is evolving. The next generation of home buyers, Gen X, will have different wants, likes and needs. The question of whether we need a PAC is a legitimate one? We know from the data we have collected we have too much flat space that is way under-utilized. We watched as Sun City West created a space allocation committee and from their efforts, they restructured to better utilize what they had. We should have done the same.

The Lakeview Rec Center remodel can become the new centerpiece of the community's evolution. What should never happen is the old band-aid on the broken arm approach we have become accustomed to. It is curious is to me that Karen McAdam (who has long been a proponent of data driven decisions) is now telling us we need to just throw a PAC up on the lawn bowling greens as she leaves office.

If you are troubled by this decision or if you support it you need to show up on Monday Nov 11 and speak out. That is how the community is supposed to work and we know historically that was why we were so successful.

 

Thanks for your kind words Emily. I hated to leave the Board but realized that I could probably make more of an impact as a Member like you.

****Please note that at the Special Session held at Mountain View on January 18th to discuss the Elements needed, the Boards' own presentation shows a slide with the PAC in the eastern section of Lakeview and goes on to state that they want to keep Lakeview Lawn bowling, Shuffleboard, Fishing and Mini Golf.

****Why indeed the hurry? Consider the timeline.....

• 
  
  
  • The report by triArc architecture and design was delivered in a Planning Session to the Membership and the Board on October 31.
  • Monday, November 4th, those of us who receive RCSC E-mail Blasts (less than 7,000 Members) were notified that following the Exchange meeting on November 11th at 9 am, there would be a Special Session of the Board and an agenda was sent.
  • Wednesday, November, 6th, an amended agenda was sent in another Email Blast to the Members. Another somewhat vague motion had been added to the Special Session.
  • Today, November 10th in the weekly Email Blast, the Board and Committee Meetings section of the Blast lists “a Special Session will be held immediately after the Exchange meeting on November 11 to discuss the Performing Arts Center location.”
  • There is no agenda; there are no motions listed; there is no back-up material
  • Monday, November 11th, Director Collins plans to introduce this motion, “ I move that the recommendation by TriArc, the architect engineering firm designing the Mountainview project, regarding the location of the proposed Performing Arts Center (PAC), be accepted.” This will be the first read; motions require two reads.
  • The Board intends to introduce the second read of the motion at the November 21st Board meeting. (This meeting moved up a week due to the Thanksgiving holiday.)
  • Not even a month has passed from the introduction and conclusion by the Board on a very expensive, contentious topic.
  • The Board has stated that Members have expressed their desire to just get “it” done, but did the Membership mean get Mountain View started or did they mean please tear up perfectly good Lawn Bowling Courts at Lakeview while Mountain View gets put on the back burner again?

****The Board chose triArc because their proposal was the most thorough and included extensive information on all their consultants. They also provided significant specialized services that other proposal as didn’t as part of their costs like a geotechnical engineering consultant, an aquatic design consultant, and security consultant.
We were very impressed with their creativity, flexibility and out of-the-box thinking. They also paid close attention to the elements' details. Paying attention to detail and listening to what Sun City needs for this project are essential skills to get the renovated rec center you deserve and have been waiting so long for. Their proposal provided 4 possible renovation concepts that included renovating the existing auditorium into a Performing Arts Center (PAC), building a new PAC at Mountain View, or building an off-site PAC. They were hypothetical only to show us some possibilities.

• Regarding the magnitude and contention surrounding this project, is it too much to ask to see the 4 possible renovation concepts mentioned above that they included in their proposal?

Jean Totten
One Day at a Time

 

My view has always been that Sun City needs a venue for live performances to have well rounded community offerings. My "vision" was a PAC at Lakeview with a view of the lake. It would also have a visual arts component and a reception area. However I always realized that RCSC would never be able to fund such a project on its own. I also did not envision it would replace the bowling greens. My advice has been to have retractable seating in a multiuse area at Mountain View until Lakeview is ready for its renovation which I believe will be several years down the road. Then there will be more data about people attending live performances and the SC Foundation would have adequate time to try to find outside funding. As I said, "That's my vision". However if it doesn't happen, then that is fine also.

Since I live close to LV, I walk over there multiple times a week while living in SC. Those lawn bowling greens are in excellent shape, well maintained, and frequently used thanks to a generous donor. The outdoor shuffleboard courts are rarely used except for the shuffleboard club once a week and an occasional twosome or foursome. Could those be eliminated or moved elsewhere for additional parking? Perhaps the number of them could be less. The minigolf course at LV is almost always busy and many people use the Hilltop Park for walking, fishing, relaxing, whatever. Of course the tennis courts are in such bad shape they are rarely used. George's Cafe and the bowling alley seem pretty busy but I don't use them. There is some storage space behind the bowling alley. I don't know what its use is but a facility that size would need some storage area. The parking lot is adequate, but not overly generous. The green space at the corner with the bronze statues and flags is attractive, especially since the trees have been trimmed. There is additional green space between the building and the lake and the minigolf which is esthetically pleasing. The benches in that area are used often. That leaves the main building. The round swimming pool is pretty well used, not as much as Bell or Mountain View though. The two level building's interior spaces are narrow so that limits their use but there is a nice patio area that is empty much of the time. From my observations, all of the clubs are well used, but could some of those be moved to other recreation centers? Would it be possible to incorporate the PAC into the existing LV building? Just a thought.........I am sure the architects, Management and Board members know much more about this than I do.

 

I am disheartened by the Board's approach but am encouraged that some of the deferred maintenance is finally being done. I could not agree more with Bills observations. The hush and rush approach the board has taken to this are more offensive than the first go around. Plopping a windowless building on a beautiful site is pure lunacy in my mind regardless of whether it has a lobby with windows. From my experience in attending professional productions, one spends at most 45 minutes in a lobby and that includes checking your coat and buying a cocktail.

I am happy to get together today with likeminded people to discuss how to best insert data into the decision-making process. I propose meeting at the gazebo in between the lawn bowling and the lake AT 12:30 TODAY (PACK A LUNCH IF YOU WANT TO) If you can attend please type yes as your reply.

 

I try not to attack anyone on the board personally, it is a thankless job. Anyone who has done it knows and understands what i mean. It's also frustrating because it is really hard to separate your own personal bias and agenda while serving on the board. I will and have attacked their ideas when i thought they were wrong headed. And, i have been aggressively outspoken with management when it is apparent they are running the board. The GM works for the board.

Here's my quick take on what is happening (for what it is worth). Without naming names there were two agenda items that were on board members leaving at the end of the year: Dramatically increasing pickleball courts at Mountain View and having an indoor dog venue. We can debate the merits of either or both, but the bigger problem is as these two board members leave, my best guess is the elements for MV include both getting their wishes met.

Their challenge was satisfying the Players who have been longing for a PAC for 20 years. The only way to accomplish all of the items (PAC, indoor dog arena and added PB courts) was to quickly plop the PAC on the lawn bowling greens. It was the easiest solution, just not a very smart one.

While i don't think it is the best use of the acres at Lakeview, if the goal was just to throw up a PAC, it could have gone behind the bowling alley. No one would be displaced and we wouldn't be losing valuable lake frontage to a massive building that has zero value other than some silly notion of a coffee shop on the water adjacent to a PAC.

It's why i have always been adamant we (the RCSC) have a long term strategic and cohesive plan where all of the pieces of the puzzle we know as our future fit together. Instead, we live through self-gratifying improvements where board members get to meet their personal needs/agenda.

I'll try and get by the Lakeview greens today but i am meeting people at Bell at noon. I would hope others avail themselves to John's offer. I will also post a note on FB about this meeting at 12:30 today.

 

Thanks, Bill for taking the time to write this . . . . appreciated and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see its truth. People on the Board are smarter than this . . . and we all inherently know right from wrong. What they are doing is just plain wrong.

And by the way, I said that very thing to Karen in an email . . .

"You initially weren’t in favor of a PAC, rather pickleball courts – what happened – is there some backstage agreement occurring? Many are asking this question."

Normally, I wouldn't expose this either, but I am extremely irritated by this whole shift back to special interests wasting everyone's good hard-earned money.

We are on the exact same page, Bill.

 

What also pisses me off is that they are voting on this in a Special Session, which means it will not get a second reading! Once and done!

I get it, the PAC has been a thorn in the Boards side for 20 years, and it is time to shit or get off the pot, but there are still way too many unanswered questions to ramrod this thru.

They want to finalize the location but still have no idea who will actually use the facility!

It's all about "potential" with no guarantees! I have the "potential" of hitting the Mega Millions, but I know that that's extremely unlikely!